Phjf, I reread. I said that's where I put its success, meaning how many units I think it will sell. So you say "if successful," back to me saying "I think this is how successful it will be," not "this is how interesting I find it."

its a gaming peripheral. So are those two. One sold little, one sold a few hundred thousand.

HorrorScope wrote on Apr 3, 2014, 00:31:It only has to be big enough for me that game devs develop for it.

Game developers have been developing for it since the beginning of gaming.

Basically every single racing sim, vehicle sim for e.g. mech combat, flight sim ever made would be the perfect candidate for this technology. Sure this sector might be niche, because most of these kinds of games are rather hardcore but still it exists.

Beamer wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 20:09:I'm actually with Cutter here. I think that it will catch on with enthusiasts, but go no further.

Does anyone think that VR as it is now will be for anyone more than enthusiasts? That seems like a strawman argument, I'm sure some idiots have made wild predictions (cue everyone searching my post history) but AFAIK those who are excited about VR like I am aren't expecting CoD-Bros to use it in the near future (5+ years).

It seems that a lot of Cutter's posts recently having just been relentless pessimism. His opinion isn't the craziest I've seen on this board but it seems that every Oculus Rift thread (amongst other subjects) isn't complete without him making sure everyone knows how he feels (and how right he was about 3D TV). We get it, you don't think it will catch on. Please either stop saying this or add to the thread with reasons why. "This will flop like 3D TV" barely added to the conversation the first time it was posted.

Isn't Squadron 42 a single player game element of Star Citizen?

Cutter's always been relentless pessimism, this is just the first time you're significantly on the other side. Look at his posting history - 85% of it is "this sucks" or "what losers" or "I'm the only non-idiot," and often he's reacting to a headline that's misleading.

And it depends on how you define success, right? I think there's absolutely a segment that will pay $300 for VR, and I think there are devs that will support it (not necessarily AAA.) Do I think that segment is big enough for a $2B investment? God no. Do I think that segment is big enough for the product to get shelf space at retail? Probably not. Do I think it's big enough to sustain a company? Maybe.I think it fall somewhere between that FPS mini keyboard hybrid Razer has (which I bought for $30 off Woot and should probably hook up at some point) and an MMO optimized mouse. Probably.

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 18:48:I get migraine from cinema 3D as well.. in the end, for people like us a test-run in a store is the only way to make sure we are compatible with the tech. Your speculation is not unfunded but even your specific medical problem has a technological fix (eye tracking and adaptive lenses)

We'll have to see, that's the only way in the end. A store demo of it would help. But I don't see stores lining up for it, and I don't see Oculus lining up and shipping out demo units to people to try out and see if the tech will work for them either.

I see stores lining up. Places like Best Buy will have these running Skyrim or BF4, and people will try it and be floored.

Both these games would be really bad examples of good VR demos though, you need to control directional movement and head-movement separately, a mech-sim, racing game, flight sim and specific for VR demos are what's gonna sell the tech. If the people in question are smart, they will bring VR demo units in every major store in every relevant nation. Just throwing it at the market is not gonna do anything.

Beamer wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 20:09:I'm actually with Cutter here. I think that it will catch on with enthusiasts, but go no further.

Does anyone think that VR as it is now will be for anyone more than enthusiasts? That seems like a strawman argument, I'm sure some idiots have made wild predictions (cue everyone searching my post history) but AFAIK those who are excited about VR like I am aren't expecting CoD-Bros to use it in the near future (5+ years).

It seems that a lot of Cutter's posts recently having just been relentless pessimism. His opinion isn't the craziest I've seen on this board but it seems that every Oculus Rift thread (amongst other subjects) isn't complete without him making sure everyone knows how he feels (and how right he was about 3D TV). We get it, you don't think it will catch on. Please either stop saying this or add to the thread with reasons why. "This will flop like 3D TV" barely added to the conversation the first time it was posted.

Also, if Star Citizen was a single player game I'd be way more excited for both these products. I'd probably pay $350 for a single player space dogfighter with a solid career mode and VR support/goggles.

I'm actually with Cutter here. I think that it will catch on with enthusiasts, but go no further. Why?

1) I don't think you can "trick your body into thinking you're there." This is one sense2) I don't think people want to stap anything to their heads3) I really don't think people want to do that for lengthy hours. Is there eye fatigue? Is there neck fatigue?4) This completely cuts you off from the outside world. Officially. Is someone breaking into your apartment and stealing your stuff? Are your college roommates playing a prank? Is your wife sitting on the couch next to you reading a magazine? You have absolutely no idea5) You look like a giant geek. While yes, that can be overcome, being similar to and closely timed with Google Glass will not help6) It's expensive for something that has one use. One. Games. I suppose film may come out with it, but who wants to watch a movie in first person?7) I'm guessing, but uncertain, that it still has the issue 3DTVs do where anything that's not entirely in frame is cut off in a disturbing way

Might it catch on? Sure. But it needs to be $99, which we're pretty far from, and even then, I'm just not convinced more people than the hardcore gamers want to strap a pound or two to their eyeballs and cut themselves out from the world to focus exclusively on a game.

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 18:48:I get migraine from cinema 3D as well.. in the end, for people like us a test-run in a store is the only way to make sure we are compatible with the tech. Your speculation is not unfunded but even your specific medical problem has a technological fix (eye tracking and adaptive lenses)

We'll have to see, that's the only way in the end. A store demo of it would help. But I don't see stores lining up for it, and I don't see Oculus lining up and shipping out demo units to people to try out and see if the tech will work for them either.

I see stores lining up. Places like Best Buy will have these running Skyrim or BF4, and people will try it and be floored.

"The worst of it all is i used to ENJOY getting excited for big titles like this, but these publishers just keep ruining my love for this wonderful hobby with their endless fuckery." - Sempai

Cutter wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 19:42:Hey, I'm first in line for a holodeck, but when it comes to people strapping tv's to their faces colour me skeptical. Shit, 3D were just some stupid glasses and people found those annoying as hell. It just ain't gonna' happen.

Like a broken clock being right twice a day, always predicting negativity and failure doesn't make you a soothsayer when it happens.

I know you correctly predicted that 3D TVs would be a fad and I know you're still feeling very smug about this and I'm sure whoever on here that said otherwise is suitably shamed. You're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to make your point but you repeatedly make the same point on every thread about seemingly everything which is to predict anything that's different to what you know will fail.

Is there any AAA game, any remake, any new service or any technology in it's infancy that you do expect to succeed?

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 18:03:Be realistic, we've also been hearing about it with regards to 3D since the 50's too. And it comes back every 10 years, doesn't catch on, and dies a slow death.

You've been hearing about 3D because it's used to increase ticket sales. And it dies because the tech still sucks. The various methods used so far all have drawbacks that outweigh the gain.

No matter what anyone said VR wasn't even market viable until just recently due to either quality or cost issues.

Hey, I'm first in line for a holodeck, but when it comes to people strapping tv's to their faces colour me skeptical. Shit, 3D were just some stupid glasses and people found those annoying as hell. It just ain't gonna' happen.

"We choose the right to be who we are. We know the difference between the reality of freedom and the illusion of freedom."

I could throw up with DK1. I'm quite prone to travel sickness and suchlike so I'd expected worse but there's definitely times when I feel queasy. Part of this is down to the screen and the tracking and I know both of these are improved. Movement tracking (in addition to rotation tracking) will help because, although it's far more intuitive than TrackIR ever was for me, it clearly needs to be held to a much higher standard.

I've no doubt much of this has improved with DK2 and will improve more with CV1 (higher refresh rate at least). However, there are other causes. When my movement and my rotation is controlled by other things, it feels odd. Moving my character and turning left and right with the KB&M while turning left, right, up and down with the Rift is odd.

I need to try more games, a few FPSs with separate head and body movement, because games with both controlling the whole character don't really work. Perhaps I'll get used to it or perhaps newer models' improvements solve this - it's impossible to say what exactly is off, perhaps it's the low refresh rate and high persistence and with these fixed my brain won't fizz.

Right now, this is my biggest concern because bigger problems (resolution, movement tracking, refresh rate, display persistence and resolution) are being dealt with. I don't know if this is or ever can be.

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 17:18:You act like VR is a novelty gimmick for gaming, when it has substantial far reach implications to technologies. Fighter jets, drones, every single thing where you don't want people to experience hostile effects (G force/death) will be remote presence VR stuff. Medical applications, social applications.

Don't get me wrong, I am skeptic and realist. Motion sickness is a real issue that they need to fix. And it will take a lot of technology to do it. But it can be done today. It could not be done 1996 or 2000 or even 2005

And yes, latency would mean humans would need to be in space, but they would not be required to do EVA work on stations. They can literally remote operate an robot with actual presence via VR + full-haptic feedback suit.

My thought would be remote surgical units in Africa or on the battle field.

As for the motion sickness, DK1 made Cory Banks throw up when he used it, one of the few people who had that reaction. But he used DK2 for hours with no problem. And I've read no cases at all where someone threw up using DK2. So it sounds like they've mostly solved that.

"The worst of it all is i used to ENJOY getting excited for big titles like this, but these publishers just keep ruining my love for this wonderful hobby with their endless fuckery." - Sempai

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 18:48:I get migraine from cinema 3D as well.. in the end, for people like us a test-run in a store is the only way to make sure we are compatible with the tech. Your speculation is not unfunded but even your specific medical problem has a technological fix (eye tracking and adaptive lenses)

We'll have to see, that's the only way in the end. A store demo of it would help. But I don't see stores lining up for it, and I don't see Oculus lining up and shipping out demo units to people to try out and see if the tech will work for them either.

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 18:03:But much like 3D, the VR helmets won't work well for those of us who have serious brain injuries, especially in the occipital lobe. And while I can see the stuff in 3D, 10mins tops and I either get a migraine, or I'm ready to vomit.

I get migraine from cinema 3D as well.. in the end, for people like us a test-run in a store is the only way to make sure we are compatible with the tech. Your speculation is not unfunded but even your specific medical problem has a technological fix (eye tracking and adaptive lenses)

NegaDeath wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 16:34:It wasn't possible to hold true back then because the technology flat out sucked. The first flying machines were terrible too but we stuck with it (no I am not comparing the usefulness of the two). Motion sickness is largely a tech issue being resolved right now. Niche is probably an accurate assessment but novelty is opinion. Everyone who has tried it has been utterly floored by it. Not in a "this is kinda fun" wiimote way but a "holy fucking shit this is awesome" way.

Be realistic, we've also been hearing about it with regards to 3D since the 50's too. And it comes back every 10 years, doesn't catch on, and dies a slow death. And I remember the helmets in the 90's people saying the same thing, and the 3D stuff with the two different types of glasses in the 80's both polarized, and lensed, and people saying the same thing.

But much like 3D, the VR helmets won't work well for those of us who have serious brain injuries, especially in the occipital lobe. And while I can see the stuff in 3D, 10mins tops and I either get a migraine, or I'm ready to vomit.

--"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." --H.L. Mencken

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 14:20:No that's just you VR with proper presence is an absolute game changing technological revolution. And 1 step of many to the holo deck.

I heard almost word-for-word that same sentence back in 1996 when I started working in IT. It didn't hold true then either, it's not true now. The biggest problem with VR headsets are the novelty effect and motion sickness.

While I agree that it doesn't hold true until it does, all of the people who have actually tried it have said that this time it's different. Cory Banks tried both DK1 and DK2, and said DK2 was an order of magnitude better experience and completely sold him on it. I've read a dozen other people who say the same thing. I've not read one negative article by someone that has tried it. I couldn't say that about VR back in the 90s.

1996 vs 2014.

The point we make, the point the makers make is... they understand there is a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Before they just did what they could easily enough and hoped. This gen we have much better tech but more importantly an understanding of what it has to be to be successful. They have said this over and over, that alone makes this attempt noticeably different. That said, it could still fail. We'll see. But I won't take 1996 as any indication.